In the UK, you're looking for JTRIG, Institute for Statecraft/Integrity Initiative, and the 77th Brigade, and probably tens to hundreds of smaller organizations.
It’s made clearer in the text, but the conflation of “citizen” and “resident” here is a common irritant that makes it really difficult to understand just what non-citizens are entitled to.
The issue here isn’t that they were sent to non-citizens (I am not a citizen and received a stimulus I’m fully entitled to) but that they were sent to non-citizen non-residents. I wouldn’t be surprised if this persistent mistake contributes to animosity towards immigrants.
They most certainly are not. Some right-libertarians have convinced themselves that they are anarchists so that they can pretend to be radicals but that does not make it so. Anarchism and capitalism are incompatible, anarchism is a left-wing ideology that among other things, seeks the end of capitalism.
I don't know why you interpreted my comment as being a criticism of communism or anarcho-syndicalism (it was just a probing question to understand what somebody thought anarchism would look like), and neither does your criticism of those ideologies make much sense. I don't think you actually know what anarcho-syndicalism is if you think it involves party politics.
The current geopolitical situation prevents anarchists from living in their desired society because there is zero (or practically zero) free land to create such a society without it existing within a state that is not anarchist. This should be obvious.
Your implication was that Seamus Milne, or his team, command a sort of "troll army" through WhatsApp. This is substantially different to disseminating talking points to friendly media faces (which is something all parties do, and is normal in political campaigning).
When you got trolled, it wasn't because of a secret WhatsApp group conspiring against you. It was because you said something that a large number of left wing people disagreed with, and Twitter worked the way it usually works and encouraged an organic pile-on. I can assure you that the UK left-wing network on Twitter has no need to get marching orders from a mythical WhatsApp group. If somebody says something that the left disagrees with, pile-ons will happen naturally.
Ironically, by dismissing people who disagree with you as commanded by Seumas Milne, you are shutting down debate yourself.
I'm sure they could finagle a job description to say this and maybe even get away with it, but unfortunately the job description they did use was unambiguously "spying on labor organizing", which makes it an open and shut case.
Is there evidence that cats are actually a problem for local wildlife in NZ? Which species are under threat?
I've found this belief is common, and it may well be true in some places (including NZ), but it's not true in many, too. In the UK for example there's no evidence to suggest cats are a problem for bird populations[1]. There is a lot of wild extrapolation going on with this subject.
Often I see people quoting statistics such as an absolute number of bird deaths caused by cats, not really understanding that you can't tell from just that statistic whether or not the species are under threat.
The right wing in the UK has been inserting their own people into top BBC positions for years. The BBC has a history of working with the security services to deny employment to anyone 'too left wing'. Some of the most well known faces on the BBC are Conservative supporters - Nick Robinson was chair of the Oxford University Conservative Association, Andrew Neil was the editor-in-chief of the Conservative supporting fascist rag The Spectator and remains chairman of its publisher. Its function over the last 10 years of government has been increasingly, and highly visibly, to propagandize for the Conservatives and smear the left.
The right controls the non-government media organizations just as well, what's the difference? The BBC is harder to control because it legally is supposed to be impartial.